I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.

Guliani & Paul repeat stance on guns

GOLER: Mayor Giuliani, Senator Fred Thompson -- and we do wish he was here -- says the Virginia Tech tragedy might have been lessened if some of the students had been allowed to carry guns. He also says that...

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

He also says he never felt safe in your city because of its gun control laws. What do you have to say to him about either of these assertions?

GIULIANI: Well, I would say to him the FBI would disagree with that. New York City was, during the years that I was mayor, the safest large city in the United States. In fact, in 2000, which was one of the last years that I was mayor, it was 191 for crime in the country.

For example, in Boston, there was a 59 percent greater chance you'd be the victim of a crime than in New York City. In many other cities, there was 100 to 300 percent greater chance that you'd be a victim of a crime than in New York City.

One of the things I accomplished as mayor of New York City was the impossible.

GIULIANI: I took a city that was the crime capital of America, and I made it not only the safest large city in America, I made it safer than 189 small cities. So, I mean, people have their right to their own feelings. The reality is, you were safer in New York than just about any other city in the United States after I was mayor for about three or four years.

GOLER: And the idea of letting college students carry weapons?

GIULIANI: I think states have a right to decide that. I mean, states have a right to decide their gun laws. The second amendment grants you the right to bear arms.

We have a federal system. A lot of these issues work in America where we have people of different views and different conscience because we are a federal system. We allow states to make different decisions.

The focus of our laws should be on criminals. That's what I did in New York City. I reduced shootings in New York City by 75 percent. And I did it by focusing not on guns but on criminals. Putting them in jail, putting them in jail for long periods of time when they committed crimes with guns, and it worked.

(APPLAUSE)

GOLER: Congressman Paul, another gun issue for you, if you will. You have said that the 9/11 attackers might have had second thoughts if they'd felt that some of the passengers aboard the airplanes might have been armed.

We have seen airplanes -- airflights diverted because people heard Arabic on planes, because they heard Muslims praying. What do you think it would do to the travel industry of this country if passengers felt others were carrying guns aboard, sir?

PAUL: Well, first off, you're quoting me incorrectly.

GOLER: I'm sorry.

PAUL: I said the responsibility for protecting passengers falls with the airline, not the government -- not the passengers. The airline's responsible for the aircraft and the passengers.

If we wouldn't have been dependent on the federal government to set all the rules, which meant no guns and no resistance, then the terrorists may well have had second thoughts, because the airlines would have had the responsibility.

PAUL: But we assumed the government was going to take care of us. After 9/11, instead of moving toward the direction of personal responsibility and private property and second amendment, we moved in the opposite direction. We turned it over to the federal government. And look at the mess we have now at airports.

I mean, the airlines -- private industry protects their property all the time. People who haul around money in armored trucks protect their money all the time. But here is one example when the federal government was involved and they messed it up, and if we put the responsibility on the right people, respected the second amendment, I sincerely believe there would have been a lot less chance of 9/11 ever happening.

(APPLAUSE)"

Hmm... Guliani's pitch could be interpreted as (1) "I believe in the Second Amendment, but don't believe the 14th Amendment incorporates that as against the States, so States are free to experiment but the Feds are not," or (2) "I believe in the Second Amendment, but in a version of that that leaves government free to pass whatever laws it wants anyway." I tend to suspect version (2) is the one intended here.

At a policy, rather than constitutional, level, one would have to ask: if states should be free to experiment, would you favor repeal of a fair portion of GCA 68 -- e.g., the prohibited person categories -- in favor of a provision that simply says no person shall sell a firearm to someone prohibited by state law to have it.

I mean, states have a right to decide their gun laws. The second amendment grants you the right to bear arms.

What laws does he think the Second Amendment prevents a state from passing? NYC has incredibly restrictive gun laws, so I'd love to hear what he thinks the meaning "the right to bear arms" means in real life.

Good point. And his handlers should brush up his delivery of the Second Amendment line. The Second Amendment does not "grant" you the right to bear arms. It protects the natural right you have. That notion always bugs me.

Last year my daughter's third-grade teacher was (to my pleasant surprise) teaching them about the Constitution and civic law in general. She had a little sheet and flash cards of basic facts. One said something like "The Bill of Rights gives us certain rights". I explained as best I could the notions of natural law and fundamental rights, and how our rights do not come from the Constitution, but are (ostensibly) protected by the Constitutional guarantees against government intrusion. She really seemed to understand.

A couple days later she said she had told her teacher what I had explained to her, and her teacher told her that her daddy was wrong. I decided it was not worth the time to write the teacher a nice little note clarifying what my daughter meant.

In Fred Thompson's announcement video, he made the point that the fundamental enumerations in the Bill of Rights protects the our God-given rights, rather than the common notion that we are granted those rights by the government. I'm not sure most politicians understand that, but at least Fred made the statement in no uncertain terms.

The government is using paperwork errors as small as the abbreviation of a city name to shut down some of the nation's longest-serving gun shops, and 2nd Amendment advocates fear the right to bear arms will mean little if there's no way to obtain a gun.
For the rest of the story

I would guarantee you the that the EX-Mayor of NYC. Who likes to say "I only used the tools I had available to me" Would no doubt continue, these policies, vigorously. Additionally since Thompson's record on the 2ND Amendment is mediocre at best. This status quo will remain so, under his watch as well.